Big Time College Football: THE World Rankings

As I work on my Fall/Winter research project I remembered an article about the academic performance of the BCS. This article stated that BCS schools and their conferences are wonderful academic institutions and some of them are the best in the world. The final paragraph states the following:

“As these data show, high powered academics and high powered athletics coexist in many first rank institutions. However, we also conclude that having a first rate athletic program is no guarantee of high-powered academics but that many first-rate research universities have no difficulty sustaining outstanding athletic programs.”

I am going to move on from this odd and confusing conclusion and look at Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings of from 2011-2012 and see if any of these truly world class institutions have big time college football programs. I am using the 2011-2012 list because for my research project I am using the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool from 2011-2012.

Below is a rundown of the to 25:

- 7 are outside the US;

- 6 are in the Ivy League;

- 4 are in the PAC-12;

- 4 are in Division III;

- 2 are in the ACC;

- 1 is in the the Big-10;

- and 1 does not have a football program.

Of the top 25; 40% are in I-AA or DIII, 28% are part of the BCS, and 4% do not have a football program. Instead of commenting on these stats and guessing at what they might mean, I will ask a series of questions to hopefully spark further inquiry:

- Does a big time college football program help an institution be world class when most of the THE methodology focuses on graduate education?

- Besides the Ivy League, why does the PAC-12 have the most institutions in the top 25?

- Would jumping up to I-A hurt Ivy League or the DIII schools and their world rankings?

- How is the California Institute of Technology the top institution in the world without a football program?

- Does having a football program help with alumni relations?

- Does having a football program help with fundraising and increasing endowments?

- Does having a football program help with undergraduate engagement?

- How much time and resources are taken away from the core mission of an institution by football?

- Is it better to have a I-AA or DIII football program if an institution wants to be world class?

Big Time College Football: Valid Comparisons

As I work on my fall/winter research project I am struck by a sentence on the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool, published by the US Department of Education.

“Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution.”

To me, this is a cop-out. Colleges and universities often say things like this referring to their unique place within the social fabric and that comparisons, unless to very similar institutions, are impossible. This uniqueness is often applied to athletics, departments within the institution, programs of study, enrollment numbers, the size of endowments, et cetera.

First of all I love higher education and I love college football. Ever since I can remember I watched college football (go UTEP Miners!) with my father and as an adult, I have worked exclusively in higher education (minus a parallel stint in retail). Because of shrinking budgets and the numerous cuts that have occurred and will occur at most institutions around the country, skyrocketing football (and basketball) revenues will be under intense scrutiny for the foreseeable future.

There needs to be an honest and frank discussion about big time football in this country because if the NCAA and the schools that populate this organization, especially the BCS do not start talking, others will and if it goes on long enough with no results, the government will get involved.

Leadership at Ivies, Part II

Becoming a leader at an Ivy takes a special career. An individual who attains one of these positions has had a professional journey that has been spectacular along with outstanding networking and business skills. In my previous article about Leadership at Ivies, I questioned why the Chronicle even looked, and I mean looked at who the leaders are at the eight Ivy League schools and asked some questions concerning demographics and what the Chronicle was trying to accomplish with the pictorial article.

Moving forward, I would like to delve into other aspects of diversity at the Ivies; diversity of thought, diversity of credentials, and diversity of age.

When I think of diversity of thought I think of business talk and the desire to fend off groupthink. In large institutions, grougpthink can be a huge problem because individuals often go along with consensus and organizations that are struggling continue to do just that, struggle because the group does not have the courage to implement change. Some say this occurs because there is not enough diversity of thought to effectively bring together the multitude of different workers, personalities, and points-of-view to get the job done.

Moving from business to higher education, most would assume that colleges and universities have an abundance of diversity of thought, but is there? The University of Colorado was searching for a Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy in 2013; why would a major university need to find a scholar in conservative thought if higher education has an abundance of diversity of thought? I know this is political diversity but this type of lack of diversity creeps into the many different working aspects of an organization. Can a conservative sit down with a liberal and get the job done without having problems? Can an administrator sit down with a group of people who think differently and work for the common good of the organization? Circling back to the Ivy League; does the Ivy League have enough diversity of thought to be immune from this type of press that occurred at the University of Colorado or enough diversity of thought that allows all workgroups to get the job done (whatever job that might be)?

All institutions of higher education strive for diversity of credentials; bringing together a variety of people that have been trained around the country and world. This is important for all the reasons associated with diversity but when it comes of Ivy leadership is there diversity of credentials? Below are the presidents of the Ivy League schools with their degrees:

Christina Paxson, President of Brown

B.A., Swarthmore College; M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia University

Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University

B.S., University of Oregon; J.D. from Columbia University

David Skorton, President of Cornell University

B.A. and M.D. from Northwestern University

Philip Hanlon, President of Dartmouth College

B.A., Dartmouth College; Ph.D., California Institute of Technology

Drew Gilpin Faust, President of Harvard University

B.A., Bryn Mawr College; M.A. and Ph.D. from University of Pennsylvania

Christopher Eisgruber, President of Princeton University

A.B., Princeton University; MLitt., Oxford University; J.D., University of Chicago

Amy Gutmann, President of University of Pennsylvania

A.B., Radcliffe College; M.Sci., London School of Economics; Ph.D., Harvard University

Peter Salovey, President of Yale College

A.B., A.M., Stanford; M.S., M.Phil., and Ph.D., Yale  College

Before I continue, in no way am I questioning the qualifications or long, successful careers of these presidents, I am just looking at where they attained their degrees. I also understand the needs of these institutions are unique amongst colleges and universities; huge endowments, mega fundraising, and students whose parents are world leaders and titans of industry.

But when it comes to diversity of credentials, it seems the Ivy League is a closed loop. As a student, if you did not attend one of these institutions (or equivalent) by age 18, then becoming an Ivy League president is already out of the picture (except Lee Bollinger and his bachelors from Oregon...go Ducks!). I know I am pointing out the obvious that the president of Penn got her Ph.D. from Harvard, or the president of Harvard got her Ph.D. from Penn; or the president of Yale got his Ph.D. from Yale; or the president of Columbia got his J.D. from Columbia; and the non-Ivy League doctorates are from University of Chicago, Northwestern, and California Institute of Technology (non-Ivy, Ivies).

This closed loop at the top tier of higher education does not bother me, the Ivy League must maintain exclusivity, but this precedence radiates to other institutions. Again, I am not questioning the careers or the work ethic of leaders who went to the Ivy League, I am questioning the need for other schools to prefer people who attained their degrees at these eight, or if you expand to Ivy equivalents, twenty schools. Being led by people who only attained their degrees from these institutions limits diversity of credentials, but with that said, when a university or college announces its new president, dean, or provost, it looks really good when they got their Ph.D. from an Ivy.

Finally, diversity of age. Are all the leaders at the Ivy League 55 and above? Are the top leaders 65 and above? Is there a mixture of mid-level leaders who are in their 40s and 50s with a few wunderkinder in their 30s?

Age diversity is important because each generation is shaped by their parents, by events that occurred before they became adults, and by their experiences as young adults. Should an institution only be led by people who  turned 18 in the late 60s and early 70s?

When institutions are open to age diversity they listen to the needs of their students more effectively. Undergraduate and graduate enrollment at the Ivy League is 50/50, but that means that half of the students are under 24 and the other half is around 33.

Can a president who is 65 listen to the needs of students who are 30 to 40 years younger? Can other leaders such as vice presidents, provosts, deans, and directors, who help advise the president and lead their own parts of the institution, listen to the needs of student if there is no age diversity?

What to do with my Humanities Degrees?

Indeed, what to do with my humanities degrees? Three of my four degrees are in music, which is part of the performing arts, a subset of the humanities. I love my degrees; I became an adult attaining these degrees and they transformed me into the musician, the academic, and the person I am today. The only problem with the super-majority of my degrees is that my full-time gig is no longer music. I came to terms with this in my previous article My Complete Failure, but for many who have humanities degrees and do not work in the field, this is a difficult problem.

My other degree is an MBA. I completed my MBA from University of Phoenix Online a few years ago and I learned a great deal. Not only was I exposed to the ins and outs of business, I now understand the business mind-set that was foreign to me for so long. Along with the knowledge and skills that I have acquired on-the-job, my MBA has been a valuable asset that I will use every day.

Now the big question: what do I do with my humanities degrees?

I should rephrase this; how do I market myself in my professional life? Do I present myself as a humanities person with business experience? Do I present myself as a business person with some humanities chops? Or do I throw out my musical training and portray myself as 100% business?

I ask these questions because I have known many humanities graduates who struggle to know how to market themselves in non-humanities environments. *When I use the term market, I mean presenting oneself to possible employers or knowing how to network in a current job. Struggling in non-humanities environments is an understandable conundrum; humanities is about thinking, reflecting, and being creative, three skills that generic, aggressive business types overlook. Humanities majors, in the business setting, often come off as thinkers who can be perceived as negative and ask too many questions. This is funny because the brightest leaders in business always ask...no beg their people to take the time to think, reflect, and be creative to help make their organizations better.

As for me and my background, I chose to market myself as a humanities major that is guided by practical business principles. Since I work in higher education there is no need to toss my humanities persona in the trash although it did take me a a few years to realize this. If I was going to work for a company like Verizon, for example, I might need to market myself first as a business person who has sharp critical thinking skills and is creative because of my humanities background.

Finally, how you market yourself when getting a job or career advancement is largely up to you, but you have to be authentic. If you are not on your resume, CV, or during an interview, employers can recognize this and even if they don’t during the screening process, they will when you show up for work. Be comfortable with who you are and learn how to focus the unique skills that have been acquired during your humanities studies.

But be warned; being authentic does not always equal a better job or promotion. Some employers will not hire you just because of your humanities degrees and will choose an MBA because it is a safe and understood personality type.

Getting a job is one of the hardest and most stressful endeavors one can go through and getting the ‘right’ job is even harder. Going for a promotion this is equally difficult because you are a known quantity and competing against co-workers that are often equally as capable. But as long as you are authentic, work hard, network, and strive for self-realization, you will find a place in this big crazy world that not only respects you and your humanities background, but allows you to use your talents and have a job you can be proud of.

It’s Not Just a Physics Problem

Colleges and Universities cannot continue to operate as if it were the good ol’ days.

I know, this is a silly statement that most would immediately shoot down because of the use of “good ol’ days,” but I stand by it. The decades after World War II saw the astounding growth of America’s colleges and universities; the US population grew, students from around the world started attending, and the government, federal and state consistently funded higher education. Colleges and universities all around the country were able to expand and start departments because of the needs of their localities and funding, although not plentiful, was there.

Fast forward to 2013; things have changed. The government, federal and state have limited resources to spread around and need to fund other things such as defense, primary and secondary education, IRS, veterans affairs, homeland security, justice, health-care, and the like before higher education takes precedence. Besides the intense scrutiny of for-profit education, all of higher education is being questioned, rightly and wrongly because of tight purse strings. This leads us to an article at Inside Higher Ed about how the University of Southern Maine is looking to eliminate their physics department.

Rewind to August 2012 and my article about classical music training in Arizona. In this article I predicted that classical music training at Arizona’s three large public institutions will drastically change by 2025. To summarize; Arizona State University will continue to have a robust school of music because of its location while the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University will slowly be bled dry, both being reduced to marching band departments (not a bad thing). To conclude the article I stated, “My prediction is not limited to Arizona. This prediction can be applied to countless content areas and replicated in every state in the union where higher education budgets are at the whim of lawmakers and the rise and fall of the economy. This is not just a music problem; this is the new higher education reality.”

Back to 2013 and the University of Southern Maine’s physics department. Because of low student enrollment the University of Southern Maine is looking to cut its physics department. If this goes into effect, the university will continue to offer electives in physics but if a student wants major in physics they will have to pack their bags and go to the University of Maine (as stated in the article). This would cause some hardship for students who were not intending on going to the University of Maine but if a school like University of Southern Maine has to cut physics then the University of Maine’s will only grow and the quality offered at that school will improve. At the end of the day students of Maine will still be able to study physics, Maine will most likely have a larger more renowned physics program at the University of Maine, and the needs of the people of Maine will be met.

As I stated in my article about classical music training, this scenario will be duplicated countless times in many different content areas where enrollment is small or shrinking. I greatly empathize with faculty members and staff that will be affected by department reductions and closures over the next ten years but there is no way to avoid this reality. The good news is that higher education is not going to suffer and America’s colleges and universities will continue to be the best in the world; individual colleges and universities and the state systems that support them have to adjust.

When it comes to which content areas will be affected, this will be decided by administrators, faculty, higher education boards, and politicians. Unfortunately I have to include politicians because as with everything, there is always a political element to higher education when it comes to money and the allocation of scarce resources. In my next article on this subject I will go over a scenario in which a state system tries to decide which content areas to reduce, which ones to consolidate, and which ones are cut.